Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.co
!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-onl
ne.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: Peter =?UTF-8?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= 
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Subject: Re: Linux/virus
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:18:03 +0100
Organization: SMP
Lines: 66
Message-ID: 
References:      
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1173374258 00 2723 hnKJ6RHOFVr3XRJ 070308 17:17:38
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de
X-ID: T5S1-yZUZeVOSskFBvBgWCa9oCQsi4LsfHTPA5vPeWgA+8ADbLaG0E
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4
X-Face: $<~KY{nMrt|(0EivP4`4l9HfN=V-jo;V;$-xaClll+F]>NsUH~FJT?]u
!Y)Yz13M]gU$wLlA[tU-"OoeG#|3Q~X/dureXwbUTt!tB|74IDO[%ZI:)|nzC9a^
t\Z`aR5tBEbImzK=Y^Ds(T]|%=-tklf*G5<=IEVL`f7-V5G0@M)@."$]Ao8$'fRA
R-+JwY@%Ibm#cJBYmRZ6-_\2Tn~,h5$/3dd|[[Qp+EW=rAp"1"bEL1Cvx*'?Fq\{
+trE;2gLfTgYBIG2tID#~OD>U
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.ubuntu:11774

Josiah Jenkins wrote:

> Whilst perusing Usenet on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:19:54 GMT, I read these
> words from SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid> :
>>* Josiah Jenkins wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
>>> Whilst perusing Usenet on Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:15:06 +0100, I read
>>> these words from maxx  :
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>No you haven't because you don't have to make the file executable on
>>Windows, it comes that way and since you are running as root, regardless
>>of what that exe can do, you can run it.
> 
> The operative word there is "CAN" !!
> Hence my : Basically it boils down to 'having a clue' !

Actually, no
Why else would all those malware exist which autoexec when simply visiting
websites? How would malicious word-files work otherwise? 

This approach simply does not work with linux. Ask yourself: Why should an
attachment in OE *run* when clicked? Just because it is an executeable
file? The notion of marking files as "executeable" by "file extension" is
the dumbest way to do things you could possibly use. Guess what: MS does

And "having" a clue" does not help a tiny little bit. You don't know in
advance that a site has malicious code. Or that the DOC file from your
friend is infected because he has even less clue than you

>>> It's a perfectly straightforward job to keep
>>> a Win machine free of virii/viruses but the
>>> vast majority of users don't know how to.
>>
>>Perfectly straightforward? I think not. The amount
>>of upfront work necessary, updates
> 
> Automatic AV updates every 24 hours
> (AVG and Avast, both freeware)

Yup. And see how well they handle new viruses. Not at all.
They are always several hours at best, and usually days behind the newest
wave of viruses. Time where your "protection" is as safe as a wet paper bag
 
> Automatic Firewall updates
> (Zone Alarm, also freeware)

Firewalls help against viruses not at all. They *might* help a little
against trojans
 
> Don't use M$ Exploder or Outhouse Distress !

Yes. Because it is MS crapware

>> Is it possible, sure, is it easy and straightforward?
>>not on your life.
> 
> I reckon it is, YMMV.
> 
> -- jjj

Certainly. Those 100.000+ viruses tell a different story
-- 
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Omicron Theta BBS (1:261/20)